I have a lot of experience with pulse jets so these are my thoughts, first of the one which have built has a very small operating window and are way harder to start than the U shaped Lockwood types I mostly use, the other thing is you've nearly sealed of the inlet with the Tesla valve so even if the theory worked it would probably never get the air required to run. so guess you'd need a bigger one which like you said wouldn't work as well........but you already have a valveless jet so surely you're just trying to make it work a bit better by losing less thrust out of the intake so even if it only works a little bit it might gain something. My gut is telling me this is not right set up altogether though as valved pulse jets are inline with forward facing intakes. Great idea though so please don't give up
I know you have a lot of experience with pulse jets, I've been watching your videos since before I went to college :D I guess valved pulse jets normally have the valve on the front but I figured that as long as I maintained the same inlet area it should work but it clearly didn't . I still have a lot of ideas to test, so I'm not planning on giving up . Thank you so much for the help! Just knowing you watched my video brings me great joy :D
@@integza I'm not terribly experienced with pulse jets, but I wonder if adding ripples in the backflow portions would induce turbulence, allowing you to increase the valve canal diameter without affecting diodicity.
" it would probably never get (enough of) the air required to run" Try more oxygen with the same volume input size by using denser form of oxygen. Like using liquid oxygen in place of gaseous (atmospheric) oxygen, plus your fuel.
@@integza stick it on the exhaust instead of the intake... at the least it will fire your part and burn/push the resin out without cracking? Eather way could be fun :)
Try getting rid of the smaller valves and use the center and walls as a valve instead of it being just a blank space, Then you could get rid of the tiny valves that line the walls (or don't). Also if you blow water though the valve before you cure it , it cleans it out But then you need to blow air through it afterwards to dry it and prevent it from cracking
12:00 - You could create a direct bypass into the tesla valve, so that when starting it you have no loss in pressure. Then as the engine fires up slowly closing the valve to pull air through the tesla valve. Kind of like having a choke to start a motor. But in this case a valve bypass to have better intake air flow to start the motor.
@@mateuszabramek7015 it would probably be a try it here... test... view results... try it there... test... view results... now here... test... view results. Trial and error type situations till you find the optimal positioning on it.
The pressure drop like the voltage drop across a resistor depends on current or flow. You could not build a pipe like valve and put it on the intake tube but make an anular valve alla round the discharde tube. Said that, i want to mention that this will completely change Reynolds number, making my valve, exactly like yours when the inner channel will be built wider. So my bet, is that also a design like this will fail and actually in the exact same way! So let's all toghether think again to this....
When I was a kid I built a 1:72 Spitfire. The process of designing the real thing is documented below, the killer component being the single Rolls Royce Merlin engine that meant it could carry 8x.303 machine guns. Spitfire pilots learned to flip the V1 pulsejet weapon with their wingtip. My point is this: You are very good at entertainment and content. Please don't blow yourslef up. This video was delightfully light 💓 hearted th-cam.com/video/_u4Md_aXVJE/w-d-xo.html
Ideas: 1: Stronger compressor 2: More valves in parallel flowing into one tube or multiple intakes for several tesla valves 3: Increase diameter of the valve with same canal thickness, meaning more valve area with same geometry 4: Tesla valve bypass to start the engine 5: Complicated and ridiculous but very cool: Tesla valve with VVG like a VTG turbo charger. Not variable turbine geometry but variable valve geometry. It would have moving parts but once you’re at a certain setting it would be fixed. You could even tune the valve for higher power or higher efficiency etc. Just some thoughts from some random dude struggling for sleep. Some say I’m good at physics and problem solving. Like if you want him to see and try. Edit: on second thought VVG seems unnecessarily complicated (which doesn’t subtract from the coolness). Just have a bypass intake and a Tesla valve intake and add a conventional valve to both so that you can adjust where how much of the intake air comes from. Yes, I‘m struggling for sleep, and yes it seems my inner engineer awakens when I‘m in this pitiful state. I just need stuff to think about. Have a good night everyone. Edit 2: It seems that editing your comment removes the „Integza loves your comment“. Makes sense but is kinda sad.
Parallel valves would be the way to go. 2x the valves results in 1/4x the pressure drop without losing diodicity due to design changes. Although I think the diodicity will drop to 1 if the flow gets to low... Sometimes vanes are added in tube bends to lower the pressure drop. Maybe that'll help to raise the diodicity a bit. A fluent (trumpet-like) air intake helps a lot as well to lower pressure loss.
Tesla valve is long so air getting in for second combustion takes more time to travel inside. Readuce the length of valve so air enter easy and it will close easy may be it will work😁
@@prithivirajank1481 my thought as well. I'm sure the diodicity would move closer to 1 with reduced length. But hydraulic resistance is heavily dominated by channel cross-section, so I think the forward pressure drop would change more significantly than the diodicity
Due to the quick cycle time, the valve length should be one or at most two loops. Additional air flow can be achieved with adding more valves in parallel around the pulse jet. Good luck!
You can try to calculate the pulse frequency and then the loop length. Based on the amount of fuel your barrel can supply you can calculate the amount of air needed. With the valve exit cross section and pressure you can estimate what is your current air flow and then dimension the valvr properly
I think the increase of overall size of the valve may help. It just needs to pass the comparable amount of air. The number of sections could remain hi - the air will not go backwards all the way and there is no need to push fresh air all the way through on every cycle. The engine may use air already inside the valve - if it hasn't blown out all the way.
I agree with at least testing this idea. It would prevent modification of the valve, and increase the volume of air in without decreasing the diodicidence (sp?) Per valve. Also, conceptually could this be compared/ reverse engineered from an afterburner to bottle neck the explosion's compression away from the intake to create a different pressure zone?
My suggestion to increase the airflow would be to put multiple valves in parallel - the same design as the one you already have - they would each have the same diodicity but would let more air in - good luck 👍
Since the conduit is a solid of rotation, the cross-sections are annuli; to generalize the results of the 2d model, you have to account for the change in cross-sectional area with radius
Well put. I was thinking along these lines as well. I'm wondering if instead of revolving that shape, perhaps multiple individual valves that have the known desired diodicity of 1.5 should be arranged radially around the central opening.
I was thinking something related to how its just a rotation: wont the channels fail entirely because the solid part that in a crossection shows up as a circle'ish shape in the middle of the channel (and thus splitting it into 2 channels, one curving back on itself), will become a free-floating donut that has nothing holding it in position?
@@feha92 At 5:46, you can see that Integza printed it in 3 sections radially, so the inner solid lobes of the valves will be attached to the voids between the 3 sections. The 3 negative voids will create positive supports along the central access of the valve once molded.....I think.
@@cowcar87 yes, was thinking this aswell. Excited by Integza's interest in the tesla valve I designed and 3D printed exactly the same type of "revolved" tesla valve a few months ago and came to the same conclusion as you guys. you could even make "layers" of these valves like the layers on an onion, the further out from the center the more surface area is on the outside of the cylinder and thus the more valves you can pack. the 2D sketches of the valves can be projected on the surface of the cylinder and then patterned around the cylinder
Probably this. If we look up 3d tesla valves on line there are quite a few variations. One is split pod design that looks like hamburger buns stacked off center of each other, another is a pointed cylinder that creates a ring of tesla valve structures in placed inside a sleeve, etc. One place our mans can look for inspiration. Gun silencers. A lot of tesla diodes get used in experimental/home brew silencers.
@@vitoru1000 I would love to see them get together and either make something with both their inputs or simply have a nice long chat and just see how that goes.
Mechanical Engineer here, not an expert in fluids but have you tried tapering the channels a bit near the intersections so that it creates a diffuser in one direction and a venturi in the other?
You could do a 3-D print in one of the higher temperature plastics as a "proof of concept". Even if you only get one or two shots through it, you should be able to get acoustic data. I'm wondering how it would work in conjunction with a muzzle brake, say on a .50 caliber, to reduce the "back blast" effect for the shooter and others on the firing line.
@@Larkas Suppressors work (if I recall correctly) by slowing down the escaping gasses and allowing them to expand before they exit the barrel, which reduces the sound of the "bang". So they actually reduce recoil, as the forward momentum from that moving gas is absorbed by the suppressor and works against the recoil.
I would either add a input where you can connect your compressor just for start or which is way more explosive and exciting use chemical starting slug with oxidiser. This solution was used for liquid rockets where hypergolic ignition was to slow.
Being late to the party, and only studying electrical engineering decades ago, I suspect several issues could improve the efficiency. 1. since the jet is suppose to propel a plane, a forward mounted air intake to take advantage of the in-flight ram pressure should help. 2. placing multiple Tesla values in parallel would reduce the intake air resistance. I don't have a clue how it would effect the back-flow resistance. At a fast enough speed, the engine may act as a ram jet. 3. a hybrid system with compressors to allow bypass could increase efficiency. 4. a better aerodynamic exhaust system. As a side note: if you have the processing power, setting up a genetic algorithm simulated annealing to optimize the engines parameters, since you have applications that can model performance, would be beneficial.
Observation: Revolving the Tesla valve around the axis, forming a ring (as you've done), would simply result in one unsupported ring corresponding to the center of each loop and the outer loops would have a larger volume than the inner loops. You noticed this and, based on 9:33 (and the 3D model, which I just downloaded), it look like you've arranged 6 separate curved Tesla valves radially around the axis. Thoughts that spring to mind: You're occupying a lot of volume but the cross sectional area is still very small (the area of the ring-shaped duct where the fluids enter/exit). How does the flow compare to a hollow cylindrical tube with the same cross sectional entry/exit area? How does the flow compare to a hollow rectangular block with the valve extruded linearly with the same cross sectional entry/exit area? The outermost loops of your cylindrical design have a larger volume and cross sectional area than the inner loops. Would this cause the outer loops to have a lower pressure than the inner loops? Would the difference in pressure between the inner and outer loops interfere with the fluid dynamics? Your fuel gas will experience increasingly extreme oscillations of flow rate and pressure the further down the tube that it travels due to each loop acting as a stronger and stronger restriction to backflow. The sharpest spikes would be near the end. Does your simulation account for the pulsating pressure of the flame front when it tries to propagate backwards through the Tesla valve from the the combustion chamber? If not, then you may need a way to measure the pressure over time at various positions within the value since you can't actually see what's happening. You may need a Tesla valve where the loop geometry changes as it approaches the combustion chamber, rather than using the same loop geometry over and over.
I was thinking the same thing about the unsupported material! I also think he need to have as much cross sectional opening as the original inlet at a minimum and the longer the path the more area that will be needed.. A lot of comments say to add more valves to the engine and if he ca get the unsupported material resolved that may be a viable option. If I was going to try this I’d probably reprint the model with each valve section having 3 supports to the main body keep the design and just scale it in CAD to twice the size keeping the proportions very similar then Analyze the flow to see if it has the desired factor. If so calculate the area for opening and see if you can get there with 2-3 valve sections. Then let it eat!
If that's the case, and you have 6 channels, why not just add more channels? If 6 channels nets 3 bars and we need eight, that's... what? 8-10 more channels to achieve the desired throughput?
@@tbthedozer there's nothing that should harm the flow by leaving support vanes through a true radial design, you could even play with the hydro/aerodynamics in the vanes to do fancy things with the internal flow, like spin it across the radial design
Cool concept! I wonder if the 2d simulated diodicity / forward pressure drop changes by revolving it around an axis to make it 3d: The channels closer to the axis will be smaller than those further away, and, despite having arranged them in an alternating pattern, the lack of both axial and plane symmetricity will make half the cells behave differently than the other half!
Yeah, just put the constriction loops on the inside, and the forward flow on the outside... it'll end up a larger overall structure, but should have much less pressure drop for the intake.
Well Yes, given the Correct Geometry. I do Computational Fluid Dynamics, for Fun & Profit. I see this structure in Shells, Bones & Blood Vessels. Nature teaches us a lot about Physics.
Yes, get rid of one of the world's most popular flavoring components because the transportation network in the US doesn't successfully preserve the component's freshness enough to still taste good
@@jek__ no tomatoes just fucking suck. Like seriously I hate tomatoes so much holy shit i want to crush them under my boots I fucking hate tomatoes. I try to eat my salad but no those stupid tomatoes have to spew their weird tomato cum all over it. I fucking hate tomatoes so much.
The problem is your engine isn't going anywhere. Like the V1 you need the valve on the front. It also needs to be the same diameter if not larger than the combustion chamber, so it acts like a compressor. The geometry of the engine you are using is designed to block off air flow. The Tesla valve is doing that job now, so the geometric solution is holding it back.
I think you should try an extrusion tesla valve vs the rotated one. Changing the volumes taking each path likely did some weird things to the fluid dynamics. It does look really interesting though.
That's a really good point. A 2-D tesla valve maintains path volume, but in the round, its compressing and uncompressing the path volume. I guess you'd need a radically different curvature and variable path volume which fluctuates with the diameter. to do it in the round i mean.
5:00 since you have the 3D printer available, don’t be shy to use 3D mindset instead of 2D mindset: right now you have only rotated the structure. Why not rotate the structure in spiral/helix form which corresponds better with the human vein structure and winds screws. If you use natural forms even more, you can add scales to inside walls of the shape.
The cylindrical tesla valve: very good idea! You have one air inlet into your focused wave engine, right? But the tesla valve has too much restriction, right? What if you made a short manifold where you had three tesla valves in a tight group side-by-side, connected directly to that one inlet? Since it is one inlet, the airflow into the combustion chamber should still be the same as you wanted. Because you aren't increasing the size of any one tesla valve, your diodicity isn't changing either. You would just be running multiple tesla valves in parallel for more airflow. Assuming that your air compressor has enough volume to feed the three tesla valves during startup, it should work, right? EDIT: Another commenter says "That engine design uses the change of direction as a valve already he is really adding a second valve. He needs to make it a straight engine like the one on the V1.". Good point there. What about a straight pulsejet engine with multiple tesla valves in parallel. All you need is enough volume of air flow to get it started. Maybe a leaf blower with a trumpet on the end of the leaf blower nozzle would work better than air from an air compressor. Seems multiple tesla valves in parallel need volume mostly, not pressure so much.
I would also not use the air compressor into the valve, but rather use a secondary entry point to induce flow in the engine and valves and establish the combustion.
So as the one comment mentioned earlier that usually the valves are facing the front for pulse jet engines so as to increase air flow during flight, consider that with this restriction that you have now installed it might only have a hard time at rest. Maybe consider using some form simulated air flow as to simulate flight. Perhaps a leaf blower would help give you the air flow you need if set up to the air valve. It’s pry a dumb idea but it’s what I came up with . Good luck to you and I look forward to seeing if you continue the project.
I'm not really sure about the design of the engine itself, as you're using a valve in a valveless engine, which is designed to offer enough resistance to the backwards airflow by itself. So, by adding a valve to such a design, you're making it harder to start the engine (as you have a lot more resistance to the incoming airflow) and you might not see as much of an improvement as you would otherwise notice on a design made to operate with a valve. Anyway, I love your content, keep it up!
That engine design uses the change of direction as a valve already he is really adding a second valve. He needs to make it a straight engine like the one on the V1.
Also its kind of pointless to test static. Even a normal valved pulse jets produce very little thrust when stationary. This should be a comparison between a valved and a tesla valved design with thrust compared at a constant forward velocity.
I 3D printed a cylindrical Tesla valve probably about a year ago with the intention of maybe developing a pulsejet engine with something along that design. Searching for similar Tesla valves is what led me to your channel and I was super stoked to see you attempt what I hadn't gotten around to trying.
On the valve, you can build it in two pieces and screw it together. You can also build the baffles as separate individual pieces and run a screw/nail through it. If you make the baffle physically attached to the screw then mark the screw head, you can ensure the baffle is facing the correct way. The seam can either be sealed with adhesive or a flange can be implemented or both. This is only taking in gas and compressed air so you won't temperature control, merely something that can take the pressure. In this way you can make sure the path is clear without sacrificing your piece. You can also make the path adjustable width with an rack attachment.
Yeah it would start but the moment you cut out that source engine would stop bc it will not be able to suck co much air through that valve... i mean i guess?
don't think diodicity is actually a good objective. it would probably be better to just do it linearly w1*(pressure drop backwards) - w2*(pressure drop forwards) subject to (pressure drop forwards) < (some value)
I believe that the shorter the air pulse through a Tesla valve the more efficient the diodicity is. So maybe you don't need extremely high steady-state diodicity to get enough out of it for your application. Also Messerschmitt had a concept of a valveless pulsejet-ramjet hybrid that at low or no speed, it uses the back of the ramjet shockcone and the cone sleeve to redirect the air to a backward facing intake like like the U-shaped pulsejets, but at high velocities (say Mach 0.5+) the ram pressure from the cone overcomes the pressure of the pulses and it starts to behave like a ramjet with continuous combustion.
Fluidic diodes are one way valves without moving parts that have a greater pressure difference depending upon which side of the valve receives input. Diodicity is defined as the ratio of pressure drop for reverse and forward flow for the same flow rate. It depends upon the geometry, size, nozzle configuration and Reynolds number. Vortex diodes produce a throttling effect as a result of turbulence induced by the fluid flow. Flow from one side of the valve is relatively unimpeded in the axial direction while flow from the other side is introduced tangentially producing a vortex. The present model is a spherical representation of the normally discoid vortex valve and can be printed without internal supports.
Perhaps you could extrude the valve profile helically (like threads on a screw), rather than just circularly around the main axis? Depending on the angle/dimensions you could have helical conduits.
How about using ABS and the fireplace cement. Then soak in acetone to disolve the plasic. I think that you will run into issues with the water in the cement breaking down the PVA.
I have studied pulse jets for over a year and read thousands of pages of research pdf files from various universities, Boeing, NASA Darpa and US dept of energy. I have built several unique designs but thru trial and error didnt suceed in getting one to sustain running indefinately without forced air or continous ignition. However one majical day i tried to start a small simple model and on the first attempt after turning on fuel first ( propane) the second i hit the hi voltage ignition box ( firing a spark plug) it roared to life for maybe 5 seconds without any forced air. I was elated as had over 5 design changes,countless hours working on it and testing it and getting it running. Once i figured out the secrete i built the second which is 5 times larger but it didnt take very long to get that one diald. It starts within seconds with just a touch if compressed air to initiate first deflag. I too use the focus wave cc closed on one end with intake and exhaust same direction near each other but intake about 1/3 from exhaust 2/3 to wall of cc. The secrete i realized was to 1 ) use,propane to start , get running. Then switch to fuels like méthanol or have both injectors. Use a spark plug and coil box ( used one from a torpedo style keresene / electric heater or oil burner furnace is easiest, put a swictch on it. I didnt put my injector down the intake like they say because i wanted unrestricted airflow. Use a steel 1/4 brakeline pinch off open end abd drill tiny holes on both sides as to disapate within cc. Place at right angle to cc right behind intake throat. .flare both intake and exhaust . Use the 4 to 1 quarter wave theory intake t End ( opening to cc back wall where u could place spark plug. I placed mine 1/ 3 ahead of wall 1/3 behind intake to cc spot and fuel injector. Use auto style compression fittiings to tightly connect fuel line. CC length to intake length good starting point with exhaust 1/2 to 1/3 dia of cc and as said b4 4times as long as intake to cc wall. The trick is to have the exhaust two seperate thin walled pipes one inside the other so u can vary the length quickly to find the sweet spot of harmonics. Get it running well fine tuning the exhaust lengths and can even rotate fuel injector as that plays a role in performance . Use a valve on the fuel line to adjust flow rate. Start off mellow until it is firing than crank it up while using air gun from air compressor slightly across intake mouth to start i turn fuel then spark then air. Keep air on for a few seconds while turning up fuel , slowy remove air ubtil its running then kill ignition. Your forced air valved type is my current work in progress. I am using a spring loaded check ball than closes tight against a cupped manifold in intake tract and threaded the spring for compression adjustability. Forced air. U need a large airbox enclosing intake so the air is higher pressure volume than exhaust atmosphere with adjustable waste gate or check valve . Hi velocity air is not what it wants. You can put a balloon over exhaut to keep propane from blowing out when starting and double or triple up to get higher internal cc pressure at first ignition cycle. I am doing all these and next is two tesla turbine ( both inside same unit , like a auto turb, one as a turbine to drive pump to force air thru system. And working on spiral ( rotating wave / vortex ) for higher compression. A modest intial compression of aur/ fuel will magnify thrust greatly. Putting it as high as turbine in efficiency ( fuel to thrust.) Good luck. I have many more ideas,and tests to perform. Hydrogen or water electroylosis fuel hho or really h2o2. Super sonic combustion ( detonation waves) but get a good welder first and use stainless,steel or at least steel not that crap. They run HOT. Like 3k degrees farenheit inside cc and part of ex
Have two inlet connections. One with a Tesla valve for standard running and another one that you can close with a butterfly valve (Or a plug), just for use in starting then engine.
I think the thing causing resistance in the Tesla valve is the Bernoulli-effect on the entrance and exit of the bypass channels causing an underpressure there to slow down your fluid. Try decreasing dynamic pressure in your fluid by decreasing flow velocity. You can do this by adding even more tesla valves in parallel to make a tesla injector plate. Additionally, you could try adding injector nozzles in the bypass channels pointing to the desired direction of your flow, to counteract the underpressure.
I've wanted to see two things for a long time: A cylindrical tesla valve, and a tesla valve applied to a pulsejet. And you did both in a single video! Bravo! Good luck on sorting out the issues you discovered!
Also for a stop gap solution use a stronger compressor, it won't fix the problem permanently but it could shed more light on where key flaws in different designs are, if 'x' part of the valve breaks when subjected to load in the direction of smoothes flow then that is a point that needs to be redesigned as it is causing the most drag, when it should be providing the least.
Thank you for doing a 3D Tesla valve! I have had this as a question for a few years now. Also, I read a university research paper some time ago that stated the Tesla valve gains its best efficiency ~ 11 or 12 cells. This research was based on Tesla's original design. That may be a starting point in your newer design. Another thought, try making the valve bigger.
A simple and interesting solution might be to replace the tesla valve with a reed valve and match the resonant frequency of the reed valve with the pulse jet resonant frequency. The resonant frequency of the pulse jet could be measured with a microphone and then the reed valve resonant frequency could be modeled as a simple cantilever beam and you could adjust the thickness of the reed valve to match the frequencies. Best of luck! Love the videos
i have just used this video as a source in coursework, i never expected this to be a thing it’s youtubers like you/this channel that got me into doing engineering this is so very surreal
What he has created is equivalent to a single, very deep, extruded valve. Only a small area of the cylinder is being used for airflow; not surprised the pressure is low. Seems that you could design a fully 3D structure much more efficiently. What about rotating the cells individually, making a tear drop shape.
Three suggestions: 1. Remove the bent, have a straight flow passage from axisymmetric valve to engine, 2. The valve core should not have a hole at the entry (as it looks to me), it should look like the centerbody of a supersonic intake. 3. Have less number of loops of the valve.
Very interesting. Maybe using several valves with high diodicity in parallel could reduce the forward pressure drop while keeping a good valve effect...
one suggestion for decreasing the forward pressure drop whilst maintaining the diosticity of the part could be to elongate the loops so that the return angle is more acute to the onward line... this is already not being explained well... ok at 4:40 in the vid there is a image of the valve design, from left to right will be the high resist path and right to left will be the low resist path, if you make the angles for the low resist path straighter so that the air does not have to change direction as much you can increase the flow and reduce pressure drop, to counteract this on the high resist path you could elongate the loops so that the angle at wich the airflow rejoins the main path from the loop will be much more acute and more likely to cause turbulence and increase resistance to it. also a possibility could be to narrow the loop as it goes round so that the exit for the high resist path (the bit above the number 2 in the diagram) would be narrower, increasing the flow speed at that point and (hopefully) adding a slight venturi effect into the mix, increasing the resistance further.
What do you think would occur if you revolve the Tesla valve shape around the contour of a Bell Nozzle or an aerospike nozzle? Would the choked flow condition on high pressure intake air, at a certain ratio, give you a desirable mass flow rate and pressure without sacrificing diodicity? It seems to me the pressure drop in the vanes of the valve would tend to dynamically change the effective nozzle angle based on underexpanded or overexpanded exhaust, similar to how an aerospike adapts to atmospheric pressure drop.
Use multiple "2d" valves to emulate a cylinder to cut down on manufacturing defects. Design an inlet box and outlet box with multiple valves connecting them. I'm pretty sure diodicity also changes with pressure! A low pressure flow of water in the reverse direction actually has a higher flow rate than a high pressure flow. With detonations the pressure will be so high you might be able to get away with a low resistance design. Hope this helps
I signed up for SkillSwear and dont regret it. Your animation skills have improved, and this viddy was solid. Looks like i'm shipping you those tacos after all. Do you prefer spicy or not spicy? :P
i found the physics behind the V3 facinating too using HE-Sabots. the ones aimed at England got taken out by a Tallboy but another one was sorta used aimed at the ardeenes.
It was not Hitlers's engine. That A-hole just used someone else's Idea to make people suffer. The pulse jet, was First made by an English man(But was not used for any flight.)... Irony that, it was use one them.. But that is not the point. Pulse jets are very big fuel savers.
The thing I immediately see is that your valve stack is the same size as your intake pipe. Since the valve stack has all those baffles inside it, you're simply not going to get the same air flow. If you can't scale up the diameter of the valve stack without losing diodicity, that's ok, calculate the effective intake area of your valve stack and put enough of them in parallel to equal the intake area of the intake pipe that works. Might need a little tuning after that, but that's where I'd start.
My suggestion would be to use a shape other than the tear drop. Perhaps use two isosceles triangles with their bases together. Make one base much wider than the other so as to make any fluid going the wrong direction slam into the wider base. Another modification you could make to this design would be to wrap the corners of the larger triangle inward so as to reroute the flow of the wrong direction onto itself. This will make the fluid push itself backwards while also helping to increase the flow in the other direction by removing any sharp turns.
@@nac-1 what I'm saying is that a cap, which has to A, be placed while the engine is running and B, be removable so the engine can be reused, would potentially be another part where the engine would break. Not to mention it'd have to withstand the pressure that would normally coming out of the intake.
Love your channel man! Much more interesting to watch someone testing hypotheses and problem solving on the fly, even if the gadget is flawed. Helps when you have a great sense of humor about it as well. Good luck in all your endeavors. I subbed.
If the issue is in startup, maybe add a bypass valve that is completely sealed off except when manually actuated. If it has issues running after being started, then you’ll need the bigger valve like you stated. I see colin furze has replied, and he has good points (go figure! Haha) and maybe the small gains can mean a lot. but like you said yourself, this is the scientific process! Good work!
MSc. In fluid mechanics here. (not trying to brag though!) So the question is: how to efficiently drop pressure much more in on direction than the other? I would try to design a solid parachute within a duct. The parachute has a rough drag coefficient of 1.75 on one side, and about 0.3 on the other. Potentially, as drag coefficient is proportional to pressure, that could give a diodicity of up to 8. That will strongly depend on a lot of factors though. That's a long shot, but I would be glad to contribute to that if you would like to! Cheers Arnaud
I have a question. Why is it that when the parachute is a solid, and it's big hemisphere is full of material, then it is more aerodynamic in the opposite direction than when it's an empty hemisphere?
@@MultiPleaser I am not sure I understand your question. But somehow your comment made me realize that a drag coefficient of 0.3 might be too optimistic
@@agwadadadododidi For instance, if you take a brick, and put a parabolic nose piece in it, sure, it's more aerodynamic than the original brick. But, if you turn it around, so the flat oart faces the wind, and the tail is parabolic, then it's the mist aerodynamic of the three configurations. And this mist aerodynamic configuration resembles a parachute filled up with a solid material, instead of air.
@Muckin 4on nice graphic description. At the flow and pressure he's working, it's quite likely the flow is turbulent to begin with. A sharp trailing edge sure creates turbulence, but that does not mean the charge loss is of the roof. Take a minivan, the Cd is not that bad in comparison to a parachute. I believe it is incorrect to say the trailing edge is more important than the leading one.
Late to this, but I just wanted to let you know the Schwerer Gustav wasn't meant for shelling the UK, it was meant for French defenses and actually saw use against the USSR. Fleißiges Lieschen, Busy Lizzie, or the V3 cannon, was meant for the UK. It was based off of the German WW1 Paris Gun, which had a range of 130km. She was an absolute monstrosity, barrel of 130 meter in length using 32 (we think) sequential charges to accelerate the ludicrously large rounds up to around 935 m/s, we know that full scale prototypes could reliably hit targets 93km away (at least until the barrels burst). Thankfully only two 'half-length' (it was closer to third-length) units were actually completed, and they had been deployed in the Ardennes Offensive. Together they fired 183 rounds at Luxembourg before being either withdrawn or overrun (I've seen articles proclaiming both).
Look up pulse jet augmentation. Adding augmenters to the intake and exhaust valves will help greatly. Also, gas doesn't have the energy density of kerosene or diesel. Try upgrading to liquid fuel if you want some thrust! Cheers!
Add a little flap to the inside so that it only open when under positive pressure from outside and when pressure is applied from the forces it closed. Literally another one way valve.
@@mitchellpatterson3323 this is the typical valve for a pulsejet. The flaps tend to fail because they cycle at such a high frequency in a very hot environment. Its what he's trying to avoid with the tesla valve.
@@erikhansen7120, he’s not suggesting a cycling valve, but rather a valve that is closed once the engine is running, and is only open while it is starting.
If you want to bend a metal pipe, pack it tight with sand, cap off the ends, and gently heat it up to bend. After that you can just remove the sand and you have a pipe with an even diameter to prevent bottlenecking.
Odd that Germany in WW 1 was the aggressor, siezing land from other countries. Yet, their economic punishment was considered so bad, they had to wage war again, by creating the strongest economy ever. Oxymoron. So... what was it really, Adolf? Obviously, it wasn't the economy.
@@MultiPleaser, you can fuel an economy for a short period of time by building up a massive a war machine, it that machine does nothing to sustain that economy, so unless you let your economy collapse under the dead weight of maintaining that war machine, eventually you’re left with the options of: 1) selling the war machine to other people, or 2) using the war machine against other people.
You could rent a scuba tank from your local dive shop for about $15 or less. They are usually charged to 3,000psi and you could use this for testing before you buy a more expensive compressor
It just seems like a Tesla valve isn't a good choice. I'd ditch it for something more akin to low mechanical valves. minimize the moving parts to minimize complexity and failure points.
Except the whole point is to see if (and how) the Tesla valve works, not what is the minimum number of parts. The pulse engine that Colin Furze built already has something like 2 moving parts so that is pretty much the mimimum. This is about Tesla valve and no moving parts at all.
Put an intake port that you can close that will support your compressor infront of the tesla valve. Just drill a hole insert your blower tube maybe extended and weld it in place. Just disconnect the blower. If you extend the blower tube say maybe 3 ft. The heat will bleed off not damaging the blower. Your welcome. My name is Edward by the way.. Edward Rainey. Alabama USA. LOVE YOUR CHANNEL
indoor growing box for plants. Gives lighting and automatically monitors moisture level. It will water the plant as needed and deliver plant food weekly. This is helpful for these days of sheltering at home.
The biggest issue with a multistage tesla valve is the "impedance", or the amount of time it takes for the air in the valve to change directions. Just like a coil of wire under a changing magnetic field, smaller and longer air ducts take longer times to react to changing conditions, totally wrecking the pulse motion of a pulse jet. What you probably need is a bunch of single stage valves in parallel and not in series. This will give a better air flow performance in terms of preserving the natural frequency of the pulse jet in the valve area.
My only suggestion: Your intake path is a good idea, but you've got a series of issues going on here. Your objective with a tesla valve is to have the intake path as smooth as possible in the permissive direction (i.e. minimal deviation with maximum laminar flow) and in the restrictive direction to have the input energy 'pulse' self-disrupt with flow in the j-hook opposing the incoming pulse, robbing it of energy at each step. This requires a long valvular conduit, sadly, as straightening out that input path requires some length, which is at a premium in a pulsejet engine. At each point the j-hook should allow straight motion into the j-hook on the restrictive path, then have the disruption point just before the deviation. Your angles on the j-hook for injection into the restriction portion of the stream is about 95 degrees, from the cut away in the thumbnail, give or take. It needs to be closer to 165-180 for optimum flow disruption. If you can straighten out the intake path, so the intake flow doesn't have to deviate as much, it will help flow a great deal in the permissive direction. As it stands, your pulsejet appears to be starving for air. Once the system has sufficient intake air, you can start harmonic tuning.
A few ideas, so thinking that this should be a moving system and the moving air will 1. Add pressure into the chamber as well as resistance of back pressure and 2. valve to add additional back pressure. How about adding a duct fan as well as the tesla value. Not focusing on only the value for the single part but a value with even a 1.2 and a duct prop to offset both the incoming air and back pressure. This is because a real jet/ bomb would be moving at a high rate of speed off the launch. This may be the initial critical mass needed to super charge the system. Mocking up a real life via the duct fan and tesla valve.
@@MCLooyverse Einstein's thought experiments could only ever be realized mathematically. Tesla thought about every detail of an experiment before even building. His mind was practically an FEA simulation, and he usually only needed to build a working prototype once
Hi for your valve, the idea is to make as straight a path as possible at the inlet but for the return cut the air flow in two so that it meets at the end of the 'drop'.
Your bench setup is a static air pressure intake. If the whole setup were to get into speeds with compressible flow. The dynamics will change significantly with intake nozzle shape/throat size. Stoichiometric ratios (fuel heat value) and Reynolds numbers (laminar vs turbulent flows over distance along each nozzle). Also a single size set of say six valves may be better served with a golden ratio increase in size of each valve in the series progression. Just like a rocket nozzle is designed for the maximum thrust at the speed and altitude (atmospheric pressure) of maximum dynamic loading.
Fantastic historical introduction. This is the reason why I watch a lot of videos on youtube, stimulate my curiosity and learn from the merits of the experiments. But above all to see which failures led to success. Good job!
this valve casts mass and heat but also propulses forward if the fluid returns via a straight path, pumping will propel a car forward, engines in the back of cars are pushing fluid bac at weird angles and then back up straight they hold themselves back, rear drive shafts off the fron wheels will improve over a single shaft down the middle and split. rope drive shafter will outperform mettal ones
Test the real heat exposure of the valve. Start the jet, load the valve, record the temperatures. Perhaps you can work with metal fins. Also, perhaps a rectangular valve will be easier to work with entirely.
Great channel! I believe the problem with using this type of valve is the dampening effect it’ll have on the oscillation. The system wants a reasonably high Q, and adding a high impedance to the air path will lower it. A conventional mechanical valve is as low impedance as possible while admitting air - but high enough to not be an open pipe - the expanding gasses have to have something to pull against. Then when closed it’s impedance is effectively infinite and thus so ridged it can’t absorb any energy from the system. So while the solution for best performance is probably a well tuned mechanical valve, I do have a proposal for you to try: Simulate it at speed. By which I mean, with the Tesla valve pointing forwards, blow air at it to simulate a reasonable flying speed - 200mph or more if possible. It will tip the balance of flow through the valve in your favour and is reasonable. They are meant to fly after all. Adding more parallel air passages may be a good idea also to tune it. If you have more direct questions, happy to help. I do a lot of 3D printing of air systems and would love to assist you with setting your creations on fire.
The first time I saw a Tesla valve I wondered how it could be made cylinderical and what the efficiency might be. So this video is really awesome to see. Bravo Integza!
I found this "New Tesla Valve" design very interesting www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0017931016310560#f0010 Also, this is just from my rudimentary understanding of fluid mechanics, but having the cylindrical extrusion of the tesla valve may increase the formation eddy's in a directions not parallel with the desired flow, meaning you could be getting more resistance than thought. Awesome video btw, I really enjoyed it.
I think you need a little lip curled back inside the air inlet of you pulse jet tube. This little bit of a curled lip will help create a vacuum that also helps pull in air. This is common when pulling or pushing air through a radiator or building a simple ram air scoop for a hot rod. Oh yeah this is just a thought after watching your video.
It sounds like a flow restriction to me, here are some solutions: 1 - It 'looks like' by doing a revolve in SW, you've inadvertently created another 'one way valve' for the "inner core" in the wrong direction Do you really need it? Cap that off? OR close the gap at 4:57 (dimension to Zero, not 2,25) and rebuild the inner core as solid. 2 - The cross section on the 'inflow' side must equal if not larger than the 'outflow' (flame side) in order to reduce 'pressure drop'. So suggest using more of these valves at the same time (instead of just one) to compensate flow restriction. The 'Flow paths' really doesn't like 'sharp corners' or sharp turns (add fillet / smoothest curves where applicable), especially on a tight U-bend, where flow restriction happen the most. 3 - To get cleaner 3d prints (potential blockage issue), why not try to print the ceramic in 3 pieces: 1x whole inner core + 2 valves for outer core and glue them together later, similar to 5:23 (where those revolve teardrop features should be part of the inner & outer core print), that way you can clean off any remaining un-solidified 3d print resin to stay clear of the 'easy flow channel' (the direction you want). Also, when printing in resin in general, it always good idea to leave some small 'drain holes' (while not affecting the whole Tesla valve feature) during 3d printing, so to minimize build-up of uncured resin. And blow compress air into these channels before baking (bisque) in the kiln with the ceramic. support.formlabs.com/s/article/Design-Specs?language=en_US
Revoluting it you create a geometry completely different, it works different because you compress and extend the area where fluid pass. If you want to use Tesla valve in "cilinder shape" then you should use a series of planar Tesla valve putted in circle, in this way you will preserve the physic on how Tesla valve work. Following your shape every time that air flow in part more far from center, it will decrease her pressure and velocity respect to original Tesla valve, because flowing area is increased far flom center of cilinder, and decreased more near to center of cilinder. You create a difference between left side and right side of the valve, internal side and external side.
Your videos are great Integza they are very thought-provoking. I don't think you tried this solution for your valve. Could you just make the whole valve uniformly larger by upscaling the whole valve rather than just increasing the outer layers so the inner teardrop shape valves get larger also? Since you optimized shape the only thing that really can be done is scaling it. The only problem uniformly upscaling the whole thing is you need to seal a larger part to a smaller tube. should be easy. But like you said the diodicity will be the same maybe but I don't think it would follow a linear curve if you scaled it up uniformly but I've never heard of diodicity until today. But it makes sense conceptually you will have the same pressure with a larger volume of air with a larger valve. Also if you could find your optimum fuel flow rate to make it go (hmmm) you could do some chemistry and find the rate you need air intake and if you know the pressure output of the system and the pressure your valve makes you could also you could find an optimum valve size so it's not too big. But I predict with a design like that it will be some 4 times bigger at least. Im studying mechanical engineering right now but i have no experience what so ever so maybe this is nonsense Good luck my guy.
@@logancrist991 Like the ceramics company they might also sponsor by providing the prints. They did it for adam when he built an entire 3d printed titanium iron man suit.
to fix the tesla valve setup you can more easily make it closer to the standard tesla valve however in a broader network, this means 2 things mainly. 1: make many of them with a small offset in the forward direction, and size. the forward direction offset allows for more valves to be fit into one specific space, this means rather than a pipe like tesla valve you have something more like a honeycomb of tesla valves. the offset in size is mostly relevant if you do not know what air is coming in, at which speeds, and at what frequency. 2: make it like tree branches, this is by far the most simple solution, have more valves connected to a larger inlet area. so you can either make a adapter, or more easily and cool looking make it like those tree branches in multiple directions.
![Tesla Pulsejet Engine [3D Printed]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/28XbT11lL24/mqdefault.jpg)
![Tesla Pulsejet Engine [3D Printed]](/img/tr.png)
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
I have a lot of experience with pulse jets so these are my thoughts, first of the one which have built has a very small operating window and are way harder to start than the U shaped Lockwood types I mostly use, the other thing is you've nearly sealed of the inlet with the Tesla valve so even if the theory worked it would probably never get the air required to run. so guess you'd need a bigger one which like you said wouldn't work as well........but you already have a valveless jet so surely you're just trying to make it work a bit better by losing less thrust out of the intake so even if it only works a little bit it might gain something. My gut is telling me this is not right set up altogether though as valved pulse jets are inline with forward facing intakes. Great idea though so please don't give up
I know you have a lot of experience with pulse jets, I've been watching your videos since before I went to college :D
I guess valved pulse jets normally have the valve on the front but I figured that as long as I maintained the same inlet area it should work but it clearly didn't . I still have a lot of ideas to test, so I'm not planning on giving up .
Thank you so much for the help! Just knowing you watched my video brings me great joy :D
Good point, perhaps put the valve on the end.
@@integza I'm not terribly experienced with pulse jets, but I wonder if adding ripples in the backflow portions would induce turbulence, allowing you to increase the valve canal diameter without affecting diodicity.
" it would probably never get (enough of) the air required to run"
Try more oxygen with the same volume input size by using denser form of oxygen. Like using liquid oxygen in place of gaseous (atmospheric) oxygen, plus your fuel.
@@integza stick it on the exhaust instead of the intake... at the least it will fire your part and burn/push the resin out without cracking? Eather way could be fun :)
Neat, first rotational Tesla valve I've seen someone actually make.
haha lazer vizion
Look up 3d tesla, valve's. One of them looks like pancakes. Stacked side to side.
Hello NightHawkInLight! Fancy seeing you here.
i wonder if the general design could be improved with the third dimension. now it seems like its just 2,5D
Try getting rid of the smaller valves and use the center and walls as a valve instead of it being just a blank space,
Then you could get rid of the tiny valves that line the walls (or don't).
Also if you blow water though the valve before you cure it , it cleans it out
But then you need to blow air through it afterwards to dry it and prevent it from cracking
12:00 - You could create a direct bypass into the tesla valve, so that when starting it you have no loss in pressure. Then as the engine fires up slowly closing the valve to pull air through the tesla valve. Kind of like having a choke to start a motor. But in this case a valve bypass to have better intake air flow to start the motor.
My first thought too. Question is where to attach this bypass...
@@mateuszabramek7015 it would probably be a try it here... test... view results... try it there... test... view results... now here... test... view results. Trial and error type situations till you find the optimal positioning on it.
@@mateuszabramek7015 i mean, theres a space in the middle of the valve.....
This is my thought as well
guys, remember the challenge, no moving part. so automatic bypass valve is off topic...
This is. Work of art,
No, you are a work of art!
Oh boy, I've been watching your channel for so long :D
Hay cody still kicking.. nice to see you here,, great minds think alike:) what do you think?? Longer valve with wider gates??
The pressure drop like the voltage drop across a resistor depends on current or flow. You could not build a pipe like valve and put it on the intake tube but make an anular valve alla round the discharde tube.
Said that, i want to mention that this will completely change Reynolds number, making my valve, exactly like yours when the inner channel will be built wider. So my bet, is that also a design like this will fail and actually in the exact same way!
So let's all toghether think again to this....
Yeah, the thumbnail pic straight up looks like a dildo with fire coming out one end.
When I was a kid I built a 1:72 Spitfire. The process of designing the real thing is documented below, the killer component being the single Rolls Royce Merlin engine that meant it could carry 8x.303 machine guns.
Spitfire pilots learned to flip the V1 pulsejet weapon with their wingtip.
My point is this:
You are very good at entertainment and content. Please don't blow yourslef up. This video was delightfully light 💓 hearted
th-cam.com/video/_u4Md_aXVJE/w-d-xo.html
Ideas:
1: Stronger compressor
2: More valves in parallel flowing into one tube or multiple intakes for several tesla valves
3: Increase diameter of the valve with same canal thickness, meaning more valve area with same geometry
4: Tesla valve bypass to start the engine
5: Complicated and ridiculous but very cool: Tesla valve with VVG like a VTG turbo charger. Not variable turbine geometry but variable valve geometry. It would have moving parts but once you’re at a certain setting it would be fixed. You could even tune the valve for higher power or higher efficiency etc.
Just some thoughts from some random dude struggling for sleep. Some say I’m good at physics and problem solving.
Like if you want him to see and try.
Edit: on second thought VVG seems unnecessarily complicated (which doesn’t subtract from the coolness). Just have a bypass intake and a Tesla valve intake and add a conventional valve to both so that you can adjust where how much of the intake air comes from. Yes, I‘m struggling for sleep, and yes it seems my inner engineer awakens when I‘m in this pitiful state. I just need stuff to think about. Have a good night everyone.
Edit 2: It seems that editing your comment removes the „Integza loves your comment“. Makes sense but is kinda sad.
Parallel valves would be the way to go. 2x the valves results in 1/4x the pressure drop without losing diodicity due to design changes.
Although I think the diodicity will drop to 1 if the flow gets to low...
Sometimes vanes are added in tube bends to lower the pressure drop. Maybe that'll help to raise the diodicity a bit.
A fluent (trumpet-like) air intake helps a lot as well to lower pressure loss.
Tesla valve is long so air getting in for second combustion takes more time to travel inside. Readuce the length of valve so air enter easy and it will close easy may be it will work😁
Also there are some tesla valve models out there created for pulse jets. Not sure how well they work, but they look cool.
You mentioned everything I thought of and more.
@@prithivirajank1481 my thought as well. I'm sure the diodicity would move closer to 1 with reduced length. But hydraulic resistance is heavily dominated by channel cross-section, so I think the forward pressure drop would change more significantly than the diodicity
I really like how you post your failures and then just keep trying over a series.
Да, но он останавливается только тогда, когда проект заполняется
Due to the quick cycle time, the valve length should be one or at most two loops. Additional air flow can be achieved with adding more valves in parallel around the pulse jet. Good luck!
You can try to calculate the pulse frequency and then the loop length.
Based on the amount of fuel your barrel can supply you can calculate the amount of air needed.
With the valve exit cross section and pressure you can estimate what is your current air flow and then dimension the valvr properly
I think the increase of overall size of the valve may help. It just needs to pass the comparable amount of air. The number of sections could remain hi - the air will not go backwards all the way and there is no need to push fresh air all the way through on every cycle. The engine may use air already inside the valve - if it hasn't blown out all the way.
I agree with at least testing this idea. It would prevent modification of the valve, and increase the volume of air in without decreasing the diodicidence (sp?) Per valve. Also, conceptually could this be compared/ reverse engineered from an afterburner to bottle neck the explosion's compression away from the intake to create a different pressure zone?
Yeah, that's basically what I told him.
The number of valves should be proportional to the pressure differential needed.
"The V was for Vendetta" - that isn't even completely wrong.
It is just totally wrong but close enough.
well... Vergeltung is vendeta in german soooo.. your right not completely wrong ;-)
@noxxi knox Just Marketing in the old days! 😂
@@benjaminobholzer3858 "Vergeltung" is just retribution where is unjust revenge.
So no - not the same.
@noxxi knox It's purely coincidence that VWs tend to have similar reliability to a valved pulse jet.
My suggestion to increase the airflow would be to put multiple valves in parallel - the same design as the one you already have - they would each have the same diodicity but would let more air in - good luck 👍
You would have more flow, but the pressure drop would be the same. The problem he has is lack of compression
This was my first thought also. Multiple valves in parallel. 3 should allow 9 Bars of pressure.
Since the conduit is a solid of rotation, the cross-sections are annuli; to generalize the results of the 2d model, you have to account for the change in cross-sectional area with radius
Well put. I was thinking along these lines as well. I'm wondering if instead of revolving that shape, perhaps multiple individual valves that have the known desired diodicity of 1.5 should be arranged radially around the central opening.
I was thinking something related to how its just a rotation: wont the channels fail entirely because the solid part that in a crossection shows up as a circle'ish shape in the middle of the channel (and thus splitting it into 2 channels, one curving back on itself), will become a free-floating donut that has nothing holding it in position?
@@feha92 At 5:46, you can see that Integza printed it in 3 sections radially, so the inner solid lobes of the valves will be attached to the voids between the 3 sections. The 3 negative voids will create positive supports along the central access of the valve once molded.....I think.
@@cowcar87 yes, was thinking this aswell. Excited by Integza's interest in the tesla valve I designed and 3D printed exactly the same type of "revolved" tesla valve a few months ago and came to the same conclusion as you guys.
you could even make "layers" of these valves like the layers on an onion, the further out from the center the more surface area is on the outside of the cylinder and thus the more valves you can pack. the 2D sketches of the valves can be projected on the surface of the cylinder and then patterned around the cylinder
Probably this. If we look up 3d tesla valves on line there are quite a few variations. One is split pod design that looks like hamburger buns stacked off center of each other, another is a pointed cylinder that creates a ring of tesla valve structures in placed inside a sleeve, etc.
One place our mans can look for inspiration. Gun silencers. A lot of tesla diodes get used in experimental/home brew silencers.
my friend: "why do you like physics so much? its so boring="
me: "so there is this mad Scientist on TH-cam"
69, nice
NOOOOOOOO
Integza and ColinFurze are real mad scientists
@@vitoru1000 I would love to see them get together and either make something with both their inputs or simply have a nice long chat and just see how that goes.
Physics is boring only before you made your first coilgun. And after that it suddenly becomes very cool and interesting =)
Mechanical Engineer here, not an expert in fluids but have you tried tapering the channels a bit near the intersections so that it creates a diffuser in one direction and a venturi in the other?
I’m a firearm suppressor manufacturer and I would love to 3D print the design in metal and see how it works as a “silencer”
Interesting thought! Wouldn't it increase recoil, though? (Just a layman's thought, I've no real idea of how silencers - or guns - work)
@@Larkas no
You could do a 3-D print in one of the higher temperature plastics as a "proof of concept". Even if you only get one or two shots through it, you should be able to get acoustic data. I'm wondering how it would work in conjunction with a muzzle brake, say on a .50 caliber, to reduce the "back blast" effect for the shooter and others on the firing line.
@@Larkas
Suppressors work (if I recall correctly) by slowing down the escaping gasses and allowing them to expand before they exit the barrel, which reduces the sound of the "bang". So they actually reduce recoil, as the forward momentum from that moving gas is absorbed by the suppressor and works against the recoil.
Don't baffle suppressors already work in a very similar, if not practically identical, way?
I would either add a input where you can connect your compressor just for start or which is way more explosive and exciting use chemical starting slug with oxidiser. This solution was used for liquid rockets where hypergolic ignition was to slow.
I was about to comment the same thing very good
You're the reason why a check the comments to see if someone already wrote something similar to what I was thinking before writing my own
A seperate ignitios system... interesting.
i think you meant hypergolic. not hyperbolic.
Being late to the party, and only studying electrical engineering decades ago, I suspect several issues could improve the efficiency. 1. since the jet is suppose to propel a plane, a forward mounted air intake to take advantage of the in-flight ram pressure should help. 2. placing multiple Tesla values in parallel would reduce the intake air resistance. I don't have a clue how it would effect the back-flow resistance. At a fast enough speed, the engine may act as a ram jet. 3. a hybrid system with compressors to allow bypass could increase efficiency. 4. a better aerodynamic exhaust system.
As a side note: if you have the processing power, setting up a genetic algorithm simulated annealing to optimize the engines parameters, since you have applications that can model performance, would be beneficial.
Observation: Revolving the Tesla valve around the axis, forming a ring (as you've done), would simply result in one unsupported ring corresponding to the center of each loop and the outer loops would have a larger volume than the inner loops. You noticed this and, based on 9:33 (and the 3D model, which I just downloaded), it look like you've arranged 6 separate curved Tesla valves radially around the axis.
Thoughts that spring to mind:
You're occupying a lot of volume but the cross sectional area is still very small (the area of the ring-shaped duct where the fluids enter/exit).
How does the flow compare to a hollow cylindrical tube with the same cross sectional entry/exit area?
How does the flow compare to a hollow rectangular block with the valve extruded linearly with the same cross sectional entry/exit area?
The outermost loops of your cylindrical design have a larger volume and cross sectional area than the inner loops.
Would this cause the outer loops to have a lower pressure than the inner loops?
Would the difference in pressure between the inner and outer loops interfere with the fluid dynamics?
Your fuel gas will experience increasingly extreme oscillations of flow rate and pressure the further down the tube that it travels due to each loop acting as a stronger and stronger restriction to backflow. The sharpest spikes would be near the end.
Does your simulation account for the pulsating pressure of the flame front when it tries to propagate backwards through the Tesla valve from the the combustion chamber? If not, then you may need a way to measure the pressure over time at various positions within the value since you can't actually see what's happening.
You may need a Tesla valve where the loop geometry changes as it approaches the combustion chamber, rather than using the same loop geometry over and over.
I was thinking the same thing about the unsupported material! I also think he need to have as much cross sectional opening as the original inlet at a minimum and the longer the path the more area that will be needed.. A lot of comments say to add more valves to the engine and if he ca get the unsupported material resolved that may be a viable option. If I was going to try this I’d probably reprint the model with each valve section having 3 supports to the main body keep the design and just scale it in CAD to twice the size keeping the proportions very similar then Analyze the flow to see if it has the desired factor. If so calculate the area for opening and see if you can get there with 2-3 valve sections. Then let it eat!
If that's the case, and you have 6 channels, why not just add more channels? If 6 channels nets 3 bars and we need eight, that's... what? 8-10 more channels to achieve the desired throughput?
@@tbthedozer there's nothing that should harm the flow by leaving support vanes through a true radial design, you could even play with the hydro/aerodynamics in the vanes to do fancy things with the internal flow, like spin it across the radial design
It was pretty cool that the makers of the resin were willing to help you with your part.
Cool concept!
I wonder if the 2d simulated diodicity / forward pressure drop changes by revolving it around an axis to make it 3d:
The channels closer to the axis will be smaller than those further away, and, despite having arranged them in an alternating pattern, the lack of both axial and plane symmetricity will make half the cells behave differently than the other half!
Yeah, just put the constriction loops on the inside, and the forward flow on the outside... it'll end up a larger overall structure, but should have much less pressure drop for the intake.
Well Yes, given the Correct Geometry. I do Computational Fluid Dynamics, for Fun & Profit. I see this structure in Shells, Bones & Blood Vessels. Nature teaches us a lot about Physics.
@@kalethefirst7181 I was thinking a helical shape with the constriction loops on the outside, feed by centrifugal forces
Integza is learning to build rockets so he can fly all the tomatoes into orbit, making the world a better place.
Yes, get rid of one of the world's most popular flavoring components because the transportation network in the US doesn't successfully preserve the component's freshness enough to still taste good
@@jek__ no tomatoes just fucking suck. Like seriously I hate tomatoes so much holy shit i want to crush them under my boots I fucking hate tomatoes. I try to eat my salad but no those stupid tomatoes have to spew their weird tomato cum all over it. I fucking hate tomatoes so much.
I can get behind that
Shoot'em into the goddamn sun
Tomatoes are literally god tier, idk what you fools are talking about
The problem is your engine isn't going anywhere. Like the V1 you need the valve on the front. It also needs to be the same diameter if not larger than the combustion chamber, so it acts like a compressor.
The geometry of the engine you are using is designed to block off air flow. The Tesla valve is doing that job now, so the geometric solution is holding it back.
I don't know enough about physics to confirm or deny this but you sound smart so I will agree with you
I think you should try an extrusion tesla valve vs the rotated one. Changing the volumes taking each path likely did some weird things to the fluid dynamics. It does look really interesting though.
That's a really good point. A 2-D tesla valve maintains path volume, but in the round, its compressing and uncompressing the path volume.
I guess you'd need a radically different curvature and variable path volume which fluctuates with the diameter. to do it in the round i mean.
5:00 since you have the 3D printer available, don’t be shy to use 3D mindset instead of 2D mindset: right now you have only rotated the structure. Why not rotate the structure in spiral/helix form which corresponds better with the human vein structure and winds screws. If you use natural forms even more, you can add scales to inside walls of the shape.
Good idea!
Wtf are u talking about? I mean to what end?
When I was watching this I too thought 'what if' about a conical helix intake...
Schauberger's implosion system!?
Gay?
The cylindrical tesla valve: very good idea!
You have one air inlet into your focused wave engine, right? But the tesla valve has too much restriction, right? What if you made a short manifold where you had three tesla valves in a tight group side-by-side, connected directly to that one inlet? Since it is one inlet, the airflow into the combustion chamber should still be the same as you wanted. Because you aren't increasing the size of any one tesla valve, your diodicity isn't changing either. You would just be running multiple tesla valves in parallel for more airflow.
Assuming that your air compressor has enough volume to feed the three tesla valves during startup, it should work, right?
EDIT: Another commenter says "That engine design uses the change of direction as a valve already he is really adding a second valve. He needs to make it a straight engine like the one on the V1.". Good point there.
What about a straight pulsejet engine with multiple tesla valves in parallel. All you need is enough volume of air flow to get it started. Maybe a leaf blower with a trumpet on the end of the leaf blower nozzle would work better than air from an air compressor. Seems multiple tesla valves in parallel need volume mostly, not pressure so much.
Commenting to boost because you seem to have a good idea.
good idea
.
I’m interested to see the results of this.
I would also not use the air compressor into the valve, but rather use a secondary entry point to induce flow in the engine and valves and establish the combustion.
So as the one comment mentioned earlier that usually the valves are facing the front for pulse jet engines so as to increase air flow during flight, consider that with this restriction that you have now installed it might only have a hard time at rest. Maybe consider using some form simulated air flow as to simulate flight. Perhaps a leaf blower would help give you the air flow you need if set up to the air valve. It’s pry a dumb idea but it’s what I came up with . Good luck to you and I look forward to seeing if you continue the project.
Put a second intake that you can close off once it’s running. But feed full blast to start?
I'm not really sure about the design of the engine itself, as you're using a valve in a valveless engine, which is designed to offer enough resistance to the backwards airflow by itself. So, by adding a valve to such a design, you're making it harder to start the engine (as you have a lot more resistance to the incoming airflow) and you might not see as much of an improvement as you would otherwise notice on a design made to operate with a valve.
Anyway, I love your content, keep it up!
That engine design uses the change of direction as a valve already he is really adding a second valve. He needs to make it a straight engine like the one on the V1.
@@excitedbox5705 yes, exactly
Also its kind of pointless to test static.
Even a normal valved pulse jets produce very little thrust when stationary.
This should be a comparison between a valved and a tesla valved design with thrust compared at a constant forward velocity.
@@nocare yes, and it's probably even more relevant if you're using a straight valved engine similar to the V1 engine
Agreed , even though with better flowing valve this would work but whats the point , this design won't benefit from a valve .
I 3D printed a cylindrical Tesla valve probably about a year ago with the intention of maybe developing a pulsejet engine with something along that design. Searching for similar Tesla valves is what led me to your channel and I was super stoked to see you attempt what I hadn't gotten around to trying.
I would try a aerodynamic valve. Basically multiple cones in line with center opened for airflow. Like those conical fish traps but for air.
The mustache is the ultimate judge of character .
Ultimate judge of creepyness maybe
charlie chaplin would like a word
No, a beige sweater is a much better judge of character, but a good mustache is a suitable alternative
On the valve, you can build it in two pieces and screw it together. You can also build the baffles as separate individual pieces and run a screw/nail through it. If you make the baffle physically attached to the screw then mark the screw head, you can ensure the baffle is facing the correct way. The seam can either be sealed with adhesive or a flange can be implemented or both. This is only taking in gas and compressed air so you won't temperature control, merely something that can take the pressure.
In this way you can make sure the path is clear without sacrificing your piece.
You can also make the path adjustable width with an rack attachment.
Try adding a secondary intake bypassing the tesla valve just for starting it.
Interesting idea!
yessssss
Yeah it would start but the moment you cut out that source engine would stop bc it will not be able to suck co much air through that valve... i mean i guess?
I immediately thought of the same thing however, this would work only if the engine can operate after starting at the 3 bar pressure
use fmincon optmizer in Matlab and optimize the width, with respect to desired pressure drop and diodicity
don't think diodicity is actually a good objective. it would probably be better to just do it linearly w1*(pressure drop backwards) - w2*(pressure drop forwards) subject to (pressure drop forwards) < (some value)
I believe that the shorter the air pulse through a Tesla valve the more efficient the diodicity is. So maybe you don't need extremely high steady-state diodicity to get enough out of it for your application.
Also Messerschmitt had a concept of a valveless pulsejet-ramjet hybrid that at low or no speed, it uses the back of the ramjet shockcone and the cone sleeve to redirect the air to a backward facing intake like like the U-shaped pulsejets, but at high velocities (say Mach 0.5+) the ram pressure from the cone overcomes the pressure of the pulses and it starts to behave like a ramjet with continuous combustion.
I was trying to imagine what a cylindrical Tesla valve would look like. You sir are a genius.
what if you had a "starting valve" to give a higher volume of air to start it and then it closes for running.
This was my thought as well. I wonder if the vacuum inside will be strong enough to pull the amount of air it needs?
Choke valve.
The concept would get lost
@@jpendersen1294 similar concept
Fluidic diodes are one way valves without moving parts that have a greater pressure difference depending upon which side of the valve receives input. Diodicity is defined as the ratio of pressure drop for reverse and forward flow for the same flow rate. It depends upon the geometry, size, nozzle configuration and Reynolds number.
Vortex diodes produce a throttling effect as a result of turbulence induced by the fluid flow. Flow from one side of the valve is relatively unimpeded in the axial direction while flow from the other side is introduced tangentially producing a vortex. The present model is a spherical representation of the normally discoid vortex valve and can be printed without internal supports.
Perhaps you could extrude the valve profile helically (like threads on a screw), rather than just circularly around the main axis? Depending on the angle/dimensions you could have helical conduits.
This is what I was thinking. It could create a rifling effect to help you with that pressure differential
If you can understand my English, try to find my comment in main thread.
The PVA PLA idea might work with very watery fireplace cement instead of the rubbery sealant you used.
How about using ABS and the fireplace cement. Then soak in acetone to disolve the plasic. I think that you will run into issues with the water in the cement breaking down the PVA.
I have studied pulse jets for over a year and read thousands of pages of research pdf files from various universities, Boeing, NASA Darpa and US dept of energy. I have built several unique designs but thru trial and error didnt suceed in getting one to sustain running indefinately without forced air or continous ignition. However one majical day i tried to start a small simple model and on the first attempt after turning on fuel first ( propane) the second i hit the hi voltage ignition box ( firing a spark plug) it roared to life for maybe 5 seconds without any forced air. I was elated as had over 5 design changes,countless hours working on it and testing it and getting it running. Once i figured out the secrete i built the second which is 5 times larger but it didnt take very long to get that one diald. It starts within seconds with just a touch if compressed air to initiate first deflag. I too use the focus wave cc closed on one end with intake and exhaust same direction near each other but intake about 1/3 from exhaust 2/3 to wall of cc. The secrete i realized was to 1 ) use,propane to start , get running. Then switch to fuels like méthanol or have both injectors. Use a spark plug and coil box ( used one from a torpedo style keresene / electric heater or oil burner furnace is easiest, put a swictch on it. I didnt put my injector down the intake like they say because i wanted unrestricted airflow. Use a steel 1/4 brakeline pinch off open end abd drill tiny holes on both sides as to disapate within cc. Place at right angle to cc right behind intake throat. .flare both intake and exhaust . Use the 4 to 1 quarter wave theory intake t
End ( opening to cc back wall where u could place spark plug. I placed mine 1/ 3 ahead of wall 1/3 behind intake to cc spot and fuel injector. Use auto style compression fittiings to tightly connect fuel line. CC length to intake length good starting point with exhaust 1/2 to 1/3 dia of cc and as said b4 4times as long as intake to cc wall. The trick is to have the exhaust two seperate thin walled pipes one inside the other so u can vary the length quickly to find the sweet spot of harmonics. Get it running well fine tuning the exhaust lengths and can even rotate fuel injector as that plays a role in performance . Use a valve on the fuel line to adjust flow rate. Start off mellow until it is firing than crank it up while using air gun from air compressor slightly across intake mouth to start i turn fuel then spark then air. Keep air on for a few seconds while turning up fuel , slowy remove air ubtil its running then kill ignition. Your forced air valved type is my current work in progress. I am using a spring loaded check ball than closes tight against a cupped manifold in intake tract and threaded the spring for compression adjustability. Forced air. U need a large airbox enclosing intake so the air is higher pressure volume than exhaust atmosphere with adjustable waste gate or check valve . Hi velocity air is not what it wants. You can put a balloon over exhaut to keep propane from blowing out when starting and double or triple up to get higher internal cc pressure at first ignition cycle. I am doing all these and next is two tesla turbine ( both inside same unit , like a auto turb, one as a turbine to drive pump to force air thru system. And working on spiral ( rotating wave / vortex ) for higher compression. A modest intial compression of aur/ fuel will magnify thrust greatly. Putting it as high as turbine in efficiency ( fuel to thrust.) Good luck. I have many more ideas,and tests to perform. Hydrogen or water electroylosis fuel hho or really h2o2. Super sonic combustion ( detonation waves) but get a good welder first and use stainless,steel or at least steel not that crap. They run HOT. Like 3k degrees farenheit inside cc and part of ex
Have two inlet connections. One with a Tesla valve for standard running and another one that you can close with a butterfly valve (Or a plug), just for use in starting then engine.
Howabout reaching out to Destin on Smarter Every Day? He’s good with rockets
Smarter Every Day only focus on the clearly can success topic or finished idea.
Or Colin Furze, but if you do make sure you have both a safety tie and good life insurance.
So is Scott Manley.
@@benamos2878 lol, true. But the kid is genius
@@SunnySzetoSz2000 Not so. He did work with folks developing new suppressors.
I think the thing causing resistance in the Tesla valve is the Bernoulli-effect on the entrance and exit of the bypass channels causing an underpressure there to slow down your fluid.
Try decreasing dynamic pressure in your fluid by decreasing flow velocity. You can do this by adding even more tesla valves in parallel to make a tesla injector plate.
Additionally, you could try adding injector nozzles in the bypass channels pointing to the desired direction of your flow, to counteract the underpressure.
Solves a problem.
"ahhh finally im don..."
New problem: "hi there!"
Like programming
The never ending cycle of engineering
I've wanted to see two things for a long time: A cylindrical tesla valve, and a tesla valve applied to a pulsejet. And you did both in a single video! Bravo! Good luck on sorting out the issues you discovered!
Also for a stop gap solution use a stronger compressor, it won't fix the problem permanently but it could shed more light on where key flaws in different designs are, if 'x' part of the valve breaks when subjected to load in the direction of smoothes flow then that is a point that needs to be redesigned as it is causing the most drag, when it should be providing the least.
Thank you for doing a 3D Tesla valve! I have had this as a question for a few years now. Also, I read a university research paper some time ago that stated the Tesla valve gains its best efficiency ~ 11 or 12 cells. This research was based on Tesla's original design. That may be a starting point in your newer design. Another thought, try making the valve bigger.
A simple and interesting solution might be to replace the tesla valve with a reed valve and match the resonant frequency of the reed valve with the pulse jet resonant frequency. The resonant frequency of the pulse jet could be measured with a microphone and then the reed valve resonant frequency could be modeled as a simple cantilever beam and you could adjust the thickness of the reed valve to match the frequencies. Best of luck! Love the videos
@@shonmugerian pog
You actually want him to make music?ಠಿ_ಠ
i have just used this video as a source in coursework, i never expected this to be a thing
it’s youtubers like you/this channel that got me into doing engineering this is so very surreal
I'm no engineer but the solution looks obvious to me, just add more valves in parallel
it actually might work
I think this idea has merit too. Based on the information in the video, I think it might take 3 or 4 Tesla valves to work.
What he has created is equivalent to a single, very deep, extruded valve. Only a small area of the cylinder is being used for airflow; not surprised the pressure is low. Seems that you could design a fully 3D structure much more efficiently. What about rotating the cells individually, making a tear drop shape.
@@jasonjohnson9735 probably, but I have no expertise with tesla valves, all I know is some basic electronics
@@OpreanMircea I think that you are absolutely on the right track with the OP. I was just musing about ways it could be done
1:37 As a german who knows the Real Sound, this Elephanty thing killed me xD
elephants
Three suggestions: 1. Remove the bent, have a straight flow passage from axisymmetric valve to engine, 2. The valve core should not have a hole at the entry (as it looks to me), it should look like the centerbody of a supersonic intake. 3. Have less number of loops of the valve.
Very interesting. Maybe using several valves with high diodicity in parallel could reduce the forward pressure drop while keeping a good valve effect...
one suggestion for decreasing the forward pressure drop whilst maintaining the diosticity of the part could be to elongate the loops so that the return angle is more acute to the onward line... this is already not being explained well... ok at 4:40 in the vid there is a image of the valve design, from left to right will be the high resist path and right to left will be the low resist path, if you make the angles for the low resist path straighter so that the air does not have to change direction as much you can increase the flow and reduce pressure drop, to counteract this on the high resist path you could elongate the loops so that the angle at wich the airflow rejoins the main path from the loop will be much more acute and more likely to cause turbulence and increase resistance to it. also a possibility could be to narrow the loop as it goes round so that the exit for the high resist path (the bit above the number 2 in the diagram) would be narrower, increasing the flow speed at that point and (hopefully) adding a slight venturi effect into the mix, increasing the resistance further.
What do you think would occur if you revolve the Tesla valve shape around the contour of a Bell Nozzle or an aerospike nozzle? Would the choked flow condition on high pressure intake air, at a certain ratio, give you a desirable mass flow rate and pressure without sacrificing diodicity? It seems to me the pressure drop in the vanes of the valve would tend to dynamically change the effective nozzle angle based on underexpanded or overexpanded exhaust, similar to how an aerospike adapts to atmospheric pressure drop.
Use multiple "2d" valves to emulate a cylinder to cut down on manufacturing defects. Design an inlet box and outlet box with multiple valves connecting them. I'm pretty sure diodicity also changes with pressure! A low pressure flow of water in the reverse direction actually has a higher flow rate than a high pressure flow. With detonations the pressure will be so high you might be able to get away with a low resistance design. Hope this helps
I signed up for SkillSwear and dont regret it. Your animation skills have improved, and this viddy was solid. Looks like i'm shipping you those tacos after all. Do you prefer spicy or not spicy? :P
Spicy !
Integza add a bypass tube after the tesla valve to inject your compressed air
@@gov8094 that would defeat the structure. The minute he removes the compressed air the valve would fail.
Spicy! Im a chilihead
Skillswear🤣🤣🤣
Alternative title: Recreating Hitler's missile engine using a 3D printer
i found the physics behind the V3 facinating too using HE-Sabots. the ones aimed at England got taken out by a Tallboy but another one was sorta used aimed at the ardeenes.
Or better for algorithm...
**Make a bomb that flies and become Hitler using "totally legal" 3d printer**
The quotation marks are there just for fun!
@@MrIdontknowww gut gut mein Kamerad
Technically it's Von Braun's. Hitler just commissioned it.
It was not Hitlers's engine. That A-hole just used someone else's Idea to make people suffer. The pulse jet, was First made by an English man(But was not used for any flight.)... Irony that, it was use one them.. But that is not the point. Pulse jets are very big fuel savers.
The thing I immediately see is that your valve stack is the same size as your intake pipe. Since the valve stack has all those baffles inside it, you're simply not going to get the same air flow. If you can't scale up the diameter of the valve stack without losing diodicity, that's ok, calculate the effective intake area of your valve stack and put enough of them in parallel to equal the intake area of the intake pipe that works. Might need a little tuning after that, but that's where I'd start.
My suggestion would be to use a shape other than the tear drop. Perhaps use two isosceles triangles with their bases together. Make one base much wider than the other so as to make any fluid going the wrong direction slam into the wider base. Another modification you could make to this design would be to wrap the corners of the larger triangle inward so as to reroute the flow of the wrong direction onto itself. This will make the fluid push itself backwards while also helping to increase the flow in the other direction by removing any sharp turns.
Have 2 different air intakes. One for starting the engine, and another for idling.
but wouldn't you have to close the starting intake? that'd just be another moving part right?
@@pennyrq9454 A simple cap can work
@@nac-1 what I'm saying is that a cap, which has to A, be placed while the engine is running and B, be removable so the engine can be reused, would potentially be another part where the engine would break. Not to mention it'd have to withstand the pressure that would normally coming out of the intake.
@@pennyrq9454 he could also keep the hose in, it has a built in switch
Better idea then adding a valve to the existing Tesla valve liek someone sayd
Love your channel man! Much more interesting to watch someone testing hypotheses and problem solving on the fly, even if the gadget is flawed. Helps when you have a great sense of humor about it as well. Good luck in all your endeavors. I subbed.
If the issue is in startup, maybe add a bypass valve that is completely sealed off except when manually actuated. If it has issues running after being started, then you’ll need the bigger valve like you stated. I see colin furze has replied, and he has good points (go figure! Haha) and maybe the small gains can mean a lot. but like you said yourself, this is the scientific process! Good work!
MSc. In fluid mechanics here. (not trying to brag though!)
So the question is: how to efficiently drop pressure much more in on direction than the other?
I would try to design a solid parachute within a duct. The parachute has a rough drag coefficient of 1.75 on one side, and about 0.3 on the other. Potentially, as drag coefficient is proportional to pressure, that could give a diodicity of up to 8. That will strongly depend on a lot of factors though. That's a long shot, but I would be glad to contribute to that if you would like to!
Cheers
Arnaud
I have a question. Why is it that when the parachute is a solid, and it's big hemisphere is full of material, then it is more aerodynamic in the opposite direction than when it's an empty hemisphere?
@@MultiPleaser I am not sure I understand your question. But somehow your comment made me realize that a drag coefficient of 0.3 might be too optimistic
@@agwadadadododidi For instance, if you take a brick, and put a parabolic nose piece in it, sure, it's more aerodynamic than the original brick.
But, if you turn it around, so the flat oart faces the wind, and the tail is parabolic, then it's the mist aerodynamic of the three configurations.
And this mist aerodynamic configuration resembles a parachute filled up with a solid material, instead of air.
those Cd s are not valid in a narrow channel.
@Muckin 4on nice graphic description. At the flow and pressure he's working, it's quite likely the flow is turbulent to begin with.
A sharp trailing edge sure creates turbulence, but that does not mean the charge loss is of the roof. Take a minivan, the Cd is not that bad in comparison to a parachute.
I believe it is incorrect to say the trailing edge is more important than the leading one.
Late to this, but I just wanted to let you know the Schwerer Gustav wasn't meant for shelling the UK, it was meant for French defenses and actually saw use against the USSR.
Fleißiges Lieschen, Busy Lizzie, or the V3 cannon, was meant for the UK. It was based off of the German WW1 Paris Gun, which had a range of 130km. She was an absolute monstrosity, barrel of 130 meter in length using 32 (we think) sequential charges to accelerate the ludicrously large rounds up to around 935 m/s, we know that full scale prototypes could reliably hit targets 93km away (at least until the barrels burst).
Thankfully only two 'half-length' (it was closer to third-length) units were actually completed, and they had been deployed in the Ardennes Offensive. Together they fired 183 rounds at Luxembourg before being either withdrawn or overrun (I've seen articles proclaiming both).
Look up pulse jet augmentation. Adding augmenters to the intake and exhaust valves will help greatly. Also, gas doesn't have the energy density of kerosene or diesel. Try upgrading to liquid fuel if you want some thrust! Cheers!
The V1 used petrol.
If you just need the extra pressure to start the engine perhaps you could make a second inlet that you seal after starting the engine
Add a little flap to the inside so that it only open when under positive pressure from outside and when pressure is applied from the forces it closed. Literally another one way valve.
Just slap a small all metal ball valve on it for the time being to start it.
@@mitchellpatterson3323 this is the typical valve for a pulsejet. The flaps tend to fail because they cycle at such a high frequency in a very hot environment. Its what he's trying to avoid with the tesla valve.
@@erikhansen7120, he’s not suggesting a cycling valve, but rather a valve that is closed once the engine is running, and is only open while it is starting.
If you want to bend a metal pipe, pack it tight with sand, cap off the ends, and gently heat it up to bend. After that you can just remove the sand and you have a pipe with an even diameter to prevent bottlenecking.
Salt also works well for a packing agent. Table salt is cheap and in most homes.
"The V is for Vendetta." LOLMAO
It's funny cause it's true
Odd that Germany in WW 1 was the aggressor, siezing land from other countries. Yet, their economic punishment was considered so bad, they had to wage war again, by creating the strongest economy ever. Oxymoron. So... what was it really, Adolf? Obviously, it wasn't the economy.
Vengeance.
Vergeltungswaffe 1
@@MultiPleaser, you can fuel an economy for a short period of time by building up a massive a war machine, it that machine does nothing to sustain that economy, so unless you let your economy collapse under the dead weight of maintaining that war machine, eventually you’re left with the options of:
1) selling the war machine to other people, or
2) using the war machine against other people.
You could rent a scuba tank from your local dive shop for about $15 or less. They are usually charged to 3,000psi and you could use this for testing before you buy a more expensive compressor
It just seems like a Tesla valve isn't a good choice. I'd ditch it for something more akin to low mechanical valves. minimize the moving parts to minimize complexity and failure points.
Except the whole point is to see if (and how) the Tesla valve works, not what is the minimum number of parts. The pulse engine that Colin Furze built already has something like 2 moving parts so that is pretty much the mimimum. This is about Tesla valve and no moving parts at all.
Put an intake port that you can close that will support your compressor infront of the tesla valve. Just drill a hole insert your blower tube maybe extended and weld it in place. Just disconnect the blower. If you extend the blower tube say maybe 3 ft. The heat will bleed off not damaging the blower. Your welcome. My name is Edward by the way.. Edward Rainey. Alabama USA. LOVE YOUR CHANNEL
This guy takes things to the nth degree. I bet he can't help himself.
Respect
Hey Integza! I literally had this same idea a few weeks ago too, thanks for saving me hours on fusion 360!!
indoor growing box for plants. Gives lighting and automatically monitors moisture level. It will water the plant as needed and deliver plant food weekly. This is helpful for these days of sheltering at home.
The biggest issue with a multistage tesla valve is the "impedance", or the amount of time it takes for the air in the valve to change directions. Just like a coil of wire under a changing magnetic field, smaller and longer air ducts take longer times to react to changing conditions, totally wrecking the pulse motion of a pulse jet. What you probably need is a bunch of single stage valves in parallel and not in series. This will give a better air flow performance in terms of preserving the natural frequency of the pulse jet in the valve area.
My only suggestion: Your intake path is a good idea, but you've got a series of issues going on here. Your objective with a tesla valve is to have the intake path as smooth as possible in the permissive direction (i.e. minimal deviation with maximum laminar flow) and in the restrictive direction to have the input energy 'pulse' self-disrupt with flow in the j-hook opposing the incoming pulse, robbing it of energy at each step. This requires a long valvular conduit, sadly, as straightening out that input path requires some length, which is at a premium in a pulsejet engine. At each point the j-hook should allow straight motion into the j-hook on the restrictive path, then have the disruption point just before the deviation. Your angles on the j-hook for injection into the restriction portion of the stream is about 95 degrees, from the cut away in the thumbnail, give or take. It needs to be closer to 165-180 for optimum flow disruption.
If you can straighten out the intake path, so the intake flow doesn't have to deviate as much, it will help flow a great deal in the permissive direction.
As it stands, your pulsejet appears to be starving for air. Once the system has sufficient intake air, you can start harmonic tuning.
A few ideas, so thinking that this should be a moving system and the moving air will 1. Add pressure into the chamber as well as resistance of back pressure and 2. valve to add additional back pressure. How about adding a duct fan as well as the tesla value. Not focusing on only the value for the single part but a value with even a 1.2 and a duct prop to offset both the incoming air and back pressure. This is because a real jet/ bomb would be moving at a high rate of speed off the launch. This may be the initial critical mass needed to super charge the system. Mocking up a real life via the duct fan and tesla valve.
Ah yes, stealing Edison's quote for Tesla's design. Well played
Call it retribution muahahahah
And ironic, given that this methodology was one of the things that Tesla couldn't stand about Edison.
True, no one mastered the Thought Experiment quite like Tesla
@@JohnnyVisaCard I mean, Einstein was pretty good at them.
@@MCLooyverse Einstein's thought experiments could only ever be realized mathematically. Tesla thought about every detail of an experiment before even building. His mind was practically an FEA simulation, and he usually only needed to build a working prototype once
Hi for your valve, the idea is to make as straight a path as possible at the inlet but for the return cut the air flow in two so that it meets at the end of the 'drop'.
Your bench setup is a static air pressure intake. If the whole setup were to get into speeds with compressible flow. The dynamics will change significantly with intake nozzle shape/throat size. Stoichiometric ratios (fuel heat value) and Reynolds numbers (laminar vs turbulent flows over distance along each nozzle). Also a single size set of say six valves may be better served with a golden ratio increase in size of each valve in the series progression. Just like a rocket nozzle is designed for the maximum thrust at the speed and altitude (atmospheric pressure) of maximum dynamic loading.
Fantastic historical introduction. This is the reason why I watch a lot of videos on youtube, stimulate my curiosity and learn from the merits of the experiments. But above all to see which failures led to success. Good job!
Don't disrespect Charlie Chaplin's mustache, Intereza.
this valve casts mass and heat but also propulses forward if the fluid returns via a straight path, pumping will propel a car forward, engines in the back of cars are pushing fluid bac at weird angles and then back up straight they hold themselves back, rear drive shafts off the fron wheels will improve over a single shaft down the middle and split. rope drive shafter will outperform mettal ones
Test the real heat exposure of the valve. Start the jet, load the valve, record the temperatures. Perhaps you can work with metal fins. Also, perhaps a rectangular valve will be easier to work with entirely.
History class with Integza.
*Eestory class
Great channel!
I believe the problem with using this type of valve is the dampening effect it’ll have on the oscillation. The system wants a reasonably high Q, and adding a high impedance to the air path will lower it. A conventional mechanical valve is as low impedance as possible while admitting air - but high enough to not be an open pipe - the expanding gasses have to have something to pull against. Then when closed it’s impedance is effectively infinite and thus so ridged it can’t absorb any energy from the system.
So while the solution for best performance is probably a well tuned mechanical valve, I do have a proposal for you to try:
Simulate it at speed. By which I mean, with the Tesla valve pointing forwards, blow air at it to simulate a reasonable flying speed - 200mph or more if possible. It will tip the balance of flow through the valve in your favour and is reasonable. They are meant to fly after all. Adding more parallel air passages may be a good idea also to tune it.
If you have more direct questions, happy to help. I do a lot of 3D printing of air systems and would love to assist you with setting your creations on fire.
The first time I saw a Tesla valve I wondered how it could be made cylinderical and what the efficiency might be. So this video is really awesome to see. Bravo Integza!
I found this "New Tesla Valve" design very interesting www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0017931016310560#f0010
Also, this is just from my rudimentary understanding of fluid mechanics, but having the cylindrical extrusion of the tesla valve may increase the formation eddy's in a directions not parallel with the desired flow, meaning you could be getting more resistance than thought. Awesome video btw, I really enjoyed it.
This shit is freaking nuts men, very fking good desing, amazing
back flow will loose it's energy at loop turns. I don't like it.
@@redserjogha i'll prefer to look actual data, build it, and do the test, i would love to see it
@@LordCogordo It's a pity, but I have no time for that :(((
I think you need a little lip curled back inside the air inlet of you pulse jet tube. This little bit of a curled lip will help create a vacuum that also helps pull in air. This is common when pulling or pushing air through a radiator or building a simple ram air scoop for a hot rod. Oh yeah this is just a thought after watching your video.
it's simple, redesign the rest of the engine around the valve and compressor
9:51 ayy it’s my comment from the last video
Lucky and your comment is actually funny 🤣 lucky and funny rhyme well right?
It sounds like a flow restriction to me, here are some solutions:
1 - It 'looks like' by doing a revolve in SW, you've inadvertently created another 'one way valve' for the "inner core" in the wrong direction Do you really need it? Cap that off? OR close the gap at 4:57 (dimension to Zero, not 2,25) and rebuild the inner core as solid.
2 - The cross section on the 'inflow' side must equal if not larger than the 'outflow' (flame side) in order to reduce 'pressure drop'.
So suggest using more of these valves at the same time (instead of just one) to compensate flow restriction.
The 'Flow paths' really doesn't like 'sharp corners' or sharp turns (add fillet / smoothest curves where applicable), especially on a tight U-bend, where flow restriction happen the most.
3 - To get cleaner 3d prints (potential blockage issue), why not try to print the ceramic in 3 pieces: 1x whole inner core + 2 valves for outer core and glue them together later, similar to 5:23 (where those revolve teardrop features should be part of the inner & outer core print), that way you can clean off any remaining un-solidified 3d print resin to stay clear of the 'easy flow channel' (the direction you want).
Also, when printing in resin in general, it always good idea to leave some small 'drain holes' (while not affecting the whole Tesla valve feature) during 3d printing, so to minimize build-up of uncured resin. And blow compress air into these channels before baking (bisque) in the kiln with the ceramic.
support.formlabs.com/s/article/Design-Specs?language=en_US
You should section the valve off into rings so that you can access the inside easier.
You mean screw?
Challenge: make a supersonic Flow Rocket Engine
Revoluting it you create a geometry completely different, it works different because you compress and extend the area where fluid pass.
If you want to use Tesla valve in "cilinder shape" then you should use a series of planar Tesla valve putted in circle, in this way you will preserve the physic on how Tesla valve work.
Following your shape every time that air flow in part more far from center, it will decrease her pressure and velocity respect to original Tesla valve, because flowing area is increased far flom center of cilinder, and decreased more near to center of cilinder.
You create a difference between left side and right side of the valve, internal side and external side.
Just remember this, integza,
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
"
Thomas A. Edison
keep trying!
this...was a Tesla Quote?
Technically the Schwerer Gustav was made to destroy the French Maginot line, but the Germans took the shortcut and went through Belgium... again
Your videos are great Integza they are very thought-provoking.
I don't think you tried this solution for your valve.
Could you just make the whole valve uniformly larger by upscaling the whole valve rather than just increasing the outer layers so the inner teardrop shape valves get larger also?
Since you optimized shape the only thing that really can be done is scaling it.
The only problem uniformly upscaling the whole thing is you need to seal a larger part to a smaller tube. should be easy.
But like you said the diodicity will be the same maybe but I don't think it would follow a linear curve if you scaled it up uniformly but I've never heard of diodicity until today. But it makes sense conceptually you will have the same pressure with a larger volume of air with a larger valve.
Also if you could find your optimum fuel flow rate to make it go (hmmm) you could do some chemistry and find the rate you need air intake and if you know the pressure output of the system and the pressure your valve makes you could also you could find an optimum valve size so it's not too big. But I predict with a design like that it will be some 4 times bigger at least.
Im studying mechanical engineering right now but i have no experience what so ever so maybe this is nonsense
Good luck my guy.
Also there's a company that does titanium 3d printing.
That’s gotta be expensive.
@@logancrist991 Like the ceramics company they might also sponsor by providing the prints. They did it for adam when he built an entire 3d printed titanium iron man suit.
Any science teacher: "Scientific method is hypotesis, theory, experiment, conclusion."
Integza: "Scientific method is:"
*Fail*
*Fail*
*Fail*
...
*Fail 997 more times*
*Success*
to fix the tesla valve setup you can more easily make it closer to the standard tesla valve however in a broader network, this means 2 things mainly.
1: make many of them with a small offset in the forward direction, and size. the forward direction offset allows for more valves to be fit into one specific space, this means rather than a pipe like tesla valve you have something more like a honeycomb of tesla valves. the offset in size is mostly relevant if you do not know what air is coming in, at which speeds, and at what frequency.
2: make it like tree branches, this is by far the most simple solution, have more valves connected to a larger inlet area. so you can either make a adapter, or more easily and cool looking make it like those tree branches in multiple directions.
How did Standup Maths bring me here?
No matter, this is intriguing. Have a sub